Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38123746›Full record

ReviewSurgical endoscopy2024

Evaluation status of current and emerging minimally invasive robotic surgical platforms.

M Boal, C Giovene Di Girasole, F Tesfai, T E M Morrison, S Higgs, J Ahmad, A Arezzo, N Francis

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Surgical endoscopy, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 36 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
36citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

36 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. 2025 Delphi consensus on robotic ventral mesh rectopexy.International journal of colorectal disease · 2025
    Guideline
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

M BoalThe Griffin Institute, Northwick Park and St Marks Hospital, London, UK.
C Giovene Di GirasoleUniversity College London, London, UK.
F TesfaiThe Griffin Institute, Northwick Park and St Marks Hospital, London, UK.
T E M MorrisonAssociation of Laparoscopic Surgeons of Great Britain and Ireland (ALSGBI) Academy, London, UK.
S HiggsGloucestershire Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Gloucester, UK.
J AhmadUniversity Hospitals Coventry and Warwickshire, Coventry, UK.
A ArezzoDepartment of Surgical Sciences, University of Turin, Turin, Italy.
N FrancisThe Griffin Institute, Northwick Park and St Marks Hospital, London, UK. n.francis@griffininstitute.org.uk.ORCID 0000-0001-8498-9175

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe rapid adoption of robotics within minimally invasive surgical specialties has also seen an explosion of new technology including multi- and single port, natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery (NOTES), endoluminal and "on-demand" platforms. This review aims to evaluate the validation status of current and emerging MIS robotic platforms, using the IDEAL Framework.

methodsA scoping review exploring robotic minimally invasive surgical devices, technology and systems in use or being developed was performed, including general surgery, gynaecology, urology and cardiothoracics. Systems operating purely outside the abdomen or thorax and endoluminal or natural orifice platforms were excluded. PubMed, Google Scholar, journal reports and information from the public domain were collected. Each company was approached via email for a virtual interview to discover more about the systems and to quality check data. The IDEAL Framework is an internationally accepted tool to evaluate novel surgical technology, consisting of four stages: idea, development/exploration, assessment, and surveillance. An IDEAL stage, synonymous with validation status in this review, was assigned by reviewing the published literature.

results21 companies with 23 different robotic platforms were identified for data collection, 13 with national and/or international regulatory approval. Of the 17 multiport systems, 1 is fully evaluated at stage 4, 2 are stage 3, 6 stage 2b, 2 at stage 2a, 2 stage 1, and 4 at the pre-IDEAL stage 0. Of the 6 single-port systems none have been fully evaluated with 1 at stage 3, 3 at stage 1 and 2 at stage 0.

conclusionsThe majority of existing robotic platforms are currently at the preclinical to developmental and exploratory stage of evaluation. Using the IDEAL framework will ensure that emerging robotic platforms are fully evaluated with long-term data, to inform the surgical workforce and ensure patient safety.

Indexed as

GynecologyLaparoscopyNatural Orifice Endoscopic SurgeryRoboticsRobotic Surgical ProceduresHumansMinimally Invasive Surgical ProceduresDeviceEvaluationInnovationRoboticsValidation

Identifiers

PMID38123746
PMCPMC10830826

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.